Save Waikiki Sidewalk-Public Forum-Banner

 

 

 

 

SIDEWALK CASE LAW

 

Q:
Does free speech apply to all public sidewalks?
Can a private corporation, property owner or private entity control free speech -freedom of expression- on the sidewalk?

A:
VENETIAN CASINO RESORT v. LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF LAS VEGAS 226 165


VENETIAN CASINO LINK TO FULL CASE

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
VENETIAN CASINO RESORT, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF LAS VEGAS;  Culinary Workers Union, Local No. 226, an Unincorporated Association;  Bartenders Union, Local No. 165, an Unincorporated Association;  Clark County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada;  Stewart L. Bell, in his capacity as District Attorney of Clark County, Nevada;  Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Defendants-Appellees, American Civil Liberties Union, Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 00-15136.
Decided: July 12, 2001
Before:  SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HUG and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. Walter E. Dellinger,O'Melveny & Myers L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for the appellant. Michael T. Anderson, Davis, Cowell & Bowe, L.L.P., San Francisco, California, and Mitchell M. Cohen, Deputy District Attorney, Las Vegas, Nevada, for the appellees. Allen Lichtenstein, Las Vegas, Nevada, for the intervenor-appellee.


IN BRIEF EXCERPTS

The question we are presented with in this appeal is whether a sidewalk constructed on private property to replace a public sidewalk, accommodating pedestrian traffic adjacent to Las Vegas Boulevard, is a public forum subject to the protections of the First Amendment.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Venetian Casino Resort is a large hotel and casino complex located on the former site of the Sands Casino on Las Vegas Boulevard South-“the Las Vegas Strip”-in Clark County, Nevada.   As part of the approval process for demolishing the Sands and building the Venetian, the developers of the Venetian commissioned a study to determine the impact the new casino would have on traffic along Las Vegas Boulevard.....  
...The [Venetian] shall construct and maintain on its property along Las Vegas Boulevard South a private sidewalk connecting to public sidewalks on either side of its property.   The private sidewalk shall have a minimum width of ten feet and shall satisfy the Americans with Disabilities Act for the purpose of providing unobstructed pedestrian access.
...The Unions' demonstration took place on March 1, 1999.   Approximately 1,300 people participated.   During the demonstration, representatives of the Venetian issued warnings to the demonstrators that they were on private property.


IV. CONCLUSION

Given the historically public character of the predecessor's sidewalk, the replacement sidewalk's current public use, its similarity to and interconnection with Las Vegas' network of public sidewalks, and its dedication to public use under the Venetian's 1999 Agreement with the Department, we conclude that the Venetian's sidewalk constitutes a public forum subject to the protections of the First Amendment.   Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

<fin>


 

SIDEWALK SALES

Q:
Can I sell on the public sidewalk?

A: YES The Federal Ruling cites city ordinance prohibiting peddleing as unconstitutional. See Jingles case CONCLUSION

 

NMI PERRY v. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT

On 'peddling' and free speech
"Jingles" Link to FULL Law Case

SELLING ON THE SIDEWALK IS LEGAL

"We find Los Angeles Municipal Code § 42.15 facially unconstitutional and REVERSE the judgment of the district court."

"Plaintiff Newman is an activist who, on behalf of the “Animal Freedom Fighters,” an unincorporated group of individuals, solicits donations and distributes messages regarding animals' rights through the sale of literature, books, t-shirts, bumper stickers, buttons, and other articles bearing political slogans, such as “Meat is Murder.”

NMI PERRY v. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT Harry NMI PERRY;  Robert Newman, aka:  “Jingles”, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT;  City of Los Angeles;  Jane Doe Rodriguez, Police Officer;  Frank Montelongo;  Willie L. Williams, Chief of Police, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 96-55545.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 4, 1997. -- August 25, 1997

_____

IV. CONCLUSION

The statute at issue here is overbroad.   Given the significant state interests of the City, the statute is overly inclusive because it prohibits not only purely commercial activities, but also protected expressive activities, like those of plaintiffs here.   Because the distinction between expressive activities by members of nonprofit organizations and expressive activities by others is not narrowly tailored to advance the government's interests, the statute is unconstitutional on its face.

Because the distinctions made in the ordinance implicate fundamental First Amendment rights, and they are not narrowly tailored to the City's significant government interests, we REVERSE.



 

home